09-14-04Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
September 14, 2004
4:00 PM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
September 14, 2004
4:00 PM
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in a reconvened session with
Mayor Dailey presiding. The meeting was reconvened from September 7, 2004. City Clerk,
Nancy Wood registered the roll with the following Directors Present: Pugh, Vice Mayor Hinton,
Keck, Stewart, Adcock, Hurst, Graves, Wyrick, Cazort, Kumpuris and Mayor Dailey.
Mayor Dailey asked the Board to consider the modifications to the agenda, and explained that
the applicant had withdrawn the original item on the agenda.
Mr. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, announced that the correct procedure would be to note the
application has been withdrawn at the owner's request.
Director Cazort moved to add the two additions to the agenda, seconded by Director Keck.
By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, Items M -1 and M -2 were added.
ADDITIONS:
M -1. RESOLUTION N0. 11,825 - To appoint three (3) commissioners to fill vacancies on the
Board of Pecan Lake Municipal Recreational Improvement District #4; and for other purposes.
The resolution was read. A motion was made by Director Adcock, seconded by Director Hurst
to adopt the resolution. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the resolution
was adopted.
M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,824 - To declare a 120 day moratorium on the issuance of sign
permits for areas of the City being considered for declaration as scenic corridors; and for other
purposes. Director Cazort moved for the adoption of the resolution, Director Adcock seconded
the motion. Mr. Tom Carpenter announced that counsel for Lamar Billboard Company was
present, and might wish to speak. Mayor Dailey stated he would welcome their counsel to
comment. Legal Counsel for Lamar Billboard Advertising, Mr. Gibbons, stated they had been
trying for at least a month, and was directed to the Planning Department to try and work out a
compromise of a scenic adoption that would be favorable for both Lamar and the city. He stated
that currently there are about twenty permits for un -built billboards, and that what Lamar was
trying to do was come up with a common sense plan that would spread the billboard permits out.
The proposed plan calls for Kanis Road, Stagecoach Road, Colonel Glenn Road and several
other arteries to be closed down and what is going to happen is that the city will have a
proliferation occurrence because of the adoption. Director Keck asked Mr. Gibbons why a
flourish of activity was anticipated if a moratorium was put in place for 120 days. Mr. Gibbons
stated Lamar has three pending permits that have not been issued, and those permits that were
applied for were all in areas that were commercial or industrial areas, and not near residential
areas. He said their plan calls for placement in commercial zones and industrial zones only,
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
September 14, 2004
4:00 PM
where as the city's plan, which is a total prohibition on those routes is going to push the permits
to more proliferation into other residential zones that are not shut down. Director Keck asked if
one of their applications was on Kanis. Mr. Gibbons said one application is on Kanis and
Shackleford. He said their proposal segmented out areas that are only commercial and industrial
and nothing was proposed that would place billboards near residential areas. Director Keck
stated that was not accurate. That just recently anew one had been built on Kanis at the
intersection of Kanis and Gamble and it was placed there by Lamar Advertising, and while it is
zoned neighborhood office and neighborhood commercial, it's right in the middle of a residential
area. Mr. Gibbons stated that placement was prior to any scenic corridor adoption. Director
Keck stated that was correct, but he did not want the perception to be that they haven't put any
billboards in residential areas. Mr. Gibbons said that might be true on that particular one, but
their proposed plan for the twenty remaining permits is only to place billboards in true areas that
are commercial or industrial. Mayor Dailey stated he felt Mr. Gibbons was presupposing what
would come, of actions from this Board during that 120 -day period of time. The fact that the
Board may not be supporting the segmentation proposal now, and the fact the resolution is before
the Board with a motion and ultimately a vote to deal with 120 -day moratorium, gives time to
decide how details are going to be worked out. Mr. Gibbons said he agreed, but his point for
being here today is that this seemed to be an issue that was very sensitive. Their company made
many attempts to contact many people on the Board, and did speak with a few, but were directed
to go to Planning and work it out with them. He indicated they had several meetings with
Planning, and was directed to a Planning Committee Meeting and that only one Planning
Commissioner was present, and one concerned citizen. He said they were at the table and trying
to work out a comparable plan, something that would work for both the City and the billboard
industry. They were trying to determine where the best final placement of these twenty permits
would be, but found that difficult to figure that out because they were not receiving any input
from the Planning Department. Mayor Dailey stated that hopefully this action would give the
City a little bit of time to work through some of the details as part of a process and then
ultimately the action of Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and City Board would hopefully
be on the same page, but if it was not, then it would still be part of the public process. Director
Wyrick stated she thought it might be helpful if the City Manager outlined what the process is.
She explained that the process would start with the 120 -day moratorium, but what did that mean
in regards to meetings and how to step through the procedures. City Manager, Bruce Moore,
explained that the next steps are for the billboard company, after delaying action at the Planning
Commission, that staff was definitely interested in sitting down with the billboard company and
trying to craft a viable proposal. After receiving word from the Planning Staff that four permits
had been requested on Friday, he felt the next prudent step was to consider a moratorium while
discussions continue. Mr. Al Thomas, representing Lamar Advertising, said the reconvened
meeting agenda, did not have anything about the proposed resolution. He said they received it
this afternoon about 2:30, so they just found out about an hour and a half ago. He stated the fact
is that in 2002, the City approved to settle a lawsuit and Lamar Advertising has thirty permits for
billboards in various sizes. At this point, there are twenty -one permits remaining. Mr. Thomas
stated that this specific issue was discussed, as Mr. Gibbons stated, at a Planned Committee
Meeting. At that meeting, the two corridors that were being considered for designations as a
scenic corridor, all of a sudden became five corridors. Mr. Thomas indicated that this meeting
was the first notice of this action and when Lamar appeared to sit down at the table, only one
member of the Planning Commission attended. That was the first time they had any notice that
additional streets were going to be added. He stated that the thing about the off premise signs as
2
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
September 14, 2004
4:00 PM
they are referred to in the Little Rock Municipal Code, is they can be sited in four places. Places
they are zoned, C -3, C -4, I -1 or I -2. It can't be placed in ay other zoning in the city. He stated
that Lamar Advertising has taken some steps since they have acquired this company. One of the
steps, which have been made known to the Planning Commission, but not sure if the members of
the Board know, is that they have voluntarily taken down over forty signs in various parts of the
City. He said that this is an attempt by Lamar not to have a proliferation, have signs strung out
on some roads, because they understand that it doesn't look good and it helps them provide a
service to their customers. Mr. Thomas said this legislation is identified as a resolution to get
past the fact that it is really affecting general rights, and to do away with the requirement in the
Arkansas Code to have three readings. He said this is a specific moratorium, not withstanding an
agreement by the City to allow permits. There were three permits applied for, not four, last week
that this directly effects. He stated that he has some contention as to whether this is truly an
ordinance, and second of all it has never appeared as a notice to the public, and third it is at a
reconvened meeting that has never appeared on an agenda before tonight. He explained that the
way the operating procedure has been for Lamar before they actually sign a lease agreement for a
specific piece of property for a sign is that they apply for their billboard permit. They have a
tentative verbal agreement with somebody. In two of these cases, the people have not bought the
property yet. Part of the purchase of the property, depends upon them selling an easement in
order for Lamar to have a sign there. Otherwise, at least two of these most likely, because of this
ordinance, the deal would be gone. There is one of the pieces that there is a lease in place. He
said he has a problem, when all of a sudden the City has specific requirements in the code, for
what you have to do to obtain a sign permit. Lamar has done that, yet now all of a sudden, if the
permit is not issued prior to the adoption of this resolution, and there is not a lease in place, then
all of a sudden you don't have a permit anymore despite an agreement that the order was signed
in front of Judge Kilgore, settling a lawsuit that related to a previous moratorium on billboards.
Mr. Thomas asked the Board to reconsider these actions. He said he thought, specifically related
to the three permits they have applied for which are all in commercial areas, are all sited as
allowed in the Little Rock City Code, on places zoned C -2 or C -3, and are zoned appropriately,
or they could not have even turned the permit in to the Planning Department. Specifically
related to those three signs, asked that the Board continue to allow these three signs to go
through. As to the 120 days, it was kind of interesting to him when his client calls and tells him,
the City has just called him for an agreed to moratorium. He stated he would not have a problem
with it, but it seems all of a sudden, backhanded and under the table, to not have anything on the
agenda, to all of a sudden, share the resolution with the people it effects directly, much less their
clients and the people they are working with to having to have a real estate transaction go though
in the city, two hours before a resolution. He felt there were questions to be answered, number
one, how it was done, and specifically what is wrong with the process already in place, where
there can be discussion about what areas the twenty one remaining signs are to be placed in.
Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Carpenter, before the resolution was voted on, if there was anything
based on what was just presented by counsel for Lamar Adverting that would give pause to the
Board moving forward, should the Board adopt the resolution? Mr. Tom Carpenter, City
Attorney, stated the case Lamar's counsel is referring to dealt with the sign that was located
inside the Clinton Presidential Park area, and the sign had to be moved, and the agreement was
that for being allowed to move the sign, they would be given two additional permits, and one to
the bank. The City has a cap on the number of signs that can be placed in the City; there are only
certain zones on which those signs can be placed. Lamar got two additional permits on their cap,
and it said in the order that they couldn't be located on scenic corridors. The disagreement with
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
September 14, 2004
4:00 PM
Mr. Thomas on this part is that the fact that there may have been a certain number of scenic
corridors on the day that order was signed a couple of years ago, doesn't bind this elected body,
from never being able to designate another scenic corridor. Mr. Carpenter stated he and Mr.
Thomas had this discussion last Thursday, and was going back and forth as to whether it was a
violation of the court order. Mr. Carpenter stated he argued that if they had leases out there, he
would have a problem, but then found out they had the three permits that had been requested,
which was a wise move on their part. Mr. Carpenter said that what this particular resolution
does, is says, if you have already got your permit, and there is a place for it to be put up within
this 120 -day period, because they either have a lease, or title to the property, they can put them
up. If Lamar does not have the title or lease to the property, then in the resolution, it is stated
"don't, put them up ", as the process moves forward in deciding what the city wishes to do about
these being scenic corridors, and how to deal with that issue. For those permits that have been
issued for which there is no title or lease to the property, part of the discussion the Board will
need to have, in terms of the scenic corridor issue, is whether those get grand fathered in or not.
Not whether they are forever banned. Mr. Carpenter stated he appreciates what Mr. Thomas said
about somebody had a development contract that they are looking at, but in all seriousness, if
someone is not going to build a commercial building because they cannot rent a few feet for a
billboard, then thought that commercial development has a lot more problems than simply this
billboard resolution. He stated that the city is looking at 120 days, to figure out how this area is
to look and not get boards up during those 120 days from any developer while this decision is
being made. Part of that decision is going to have to be "what impact does that have on the rest
of the city as to where boards can be placed and, does the city want to change the ratios, does the
city want to look into those issues. Basically all the city is doing, is maintaining a "status quo ",
and said he did not think he put a number in section 2 as to permits because he wasn't sure how
many had been applied for, or if any more were applied for today. He said if the permits were
issued before this was passed, and Lamar has a place to put them, they could go ahead, the city
could not stop that, but if they do not have a place to put them nailed down, then they need to be
held while this process takes place and that it will be a part of the process. Director Hurst asked
for staff to explain the process for obtaining a billboard permit. Mr. Dana Carney, Planning
Zoning Manager, explained the process as being similar to any other sign permit process. There
is an application form that is submitted. Along with that application form they have to submit a
site plan or survey saying where the sign is going to go, information about the dimensions of the
sign, they type of sign, whether it's a poster or one of the designations of billboards. Those are
submitted to the Planning Office, specifically to Kenny Scott, the only person in their office that
does the review of billboards, he has been keeping up with it for a good number of years. He
said Mr. Scott would then do a review of the permit to make sure all the numbers are right, and
the zoning is correct. He confirms the zonings, and goes out and does a sight inspection on
everyone of the applications. If everything complies with the code in place at the time, the
permit is approved and the applicant pays a permit fee, and then it goes into the system. The
average review time, from the time a permit application is submitted to when the permit is
approved is three to four weeks. There were four permit applications submitted last week. Three
of the four are located on streets that are being considered as designated scenic corridors. One of
them is located on Rodney Parham and will not one of these being considered as a scenic
corridor. Mr. Carney stated there are four areas being considered for scenic corridors. They are
Kanis, Colonel, Shackleford and Chenal Parkway /Financial Center Parkway. Mr. Carney stated
these do not go through the Planning Commission. The go through a staff level review. Mr.
Moore, City Manager stated that Mr. Carney had mentioned Shackleford Road as one of those
11
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
September 14, 2004
4:00 PM
areas being considered, and wanted to clarify that it is Stagecoach Road. Mr. Thomas stated that
the three permits being discussed today, all have verbal agreements as to where they are going to
be, and when Lamar applies to the city Planning Department, they have to specify specific
location with a survey identifying and making sure it complies with other rules they are subject
to. One of the pieces applied for last week, the deal is supposed to close. Someone is purchasing
property, on Shackleford, and it's scheduled to close and part of the closing, is that Lamar at the
same time, and purchases the easement from the party. That money for the purchase of the
easement helps them come up with the money to help complete the transaction from the person
selling the property. While they may not have a specific written lease in hand, they do have an
oral agreement. Director Keck asked staff to explain the necessity of moving this forward today,
and not making it part of the agenda for action next Tuesday. Mr. Moore explained that after the
action last week when four additional permits were received, three of which were in the corridors
the city was considering, not knowing what the next steps might be, and requesting additional
dialog with the billboard company, felt after consulting with the Planning Department and City
Attorneys Office that this would be the most prudent step. Mayor Daily announced the motion
was before the Board to adopt the resolution. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members
present, the resolution was adopted.
DELETION
1. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE
Withdrawn at applicant's request.
To appeal the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a request for rezoning of the
site located at 13504 Crystal Valley Road from R -2 Single - family to PD -C. Planning
Commission: 5 yes, 6 no. Staff recommends denial of the requested PD -C zoning
1. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE - Withdrawn at applicant's request.
To appeal the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a request for rezoning of the
site located at 13504 Crystal Valley Road from R -2 Single - family to PD -C. Planning
Commission: 5 yes, 6 no. Staff recommends denial of the requested PD -C zoning
Director Keck made a motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Hinton to adjourn the reconvened
meeting. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the meeting was
adjourned.
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
September 14, 2004
4:00 PM
Mr. Carpenter stated that before the representatives for Lamar Advertising left, he wanted to
clarify that the way this resolution is written it is 120 days, until, or will expire sooner, if the
Board should decide to take action, or decide to not take action in certain areas. Mayor Dailey
announced that staff and Board would make every effort to expedite the process.
ATTEST:
J
Nan Wood, ity Clerk
APPROVED:
C
Ji ailey, Mayor
4